Explore the vast range of titles available.

The global transition to use of dolutegravir (DTG) in WHO-preferred regimens for HIV treatment is limited by lack of knowledge on use in pregnancy. Here we assessed the relationship between drug concentrations (pharmacokinetics, PK), including in breastmilk, and impact on viral suppression when initiated in the third trimester (T3). In DolPHIN-1, HIV-infected treatment-naïve pregnant women (28-36 weeks of gestation, age 26 (19-42), weight 67kg (45-119), all Black African) in Uganda and South Africa were randomised 1:1 to dolutegravir (DTG) or efavirenz (EFV)-containing ART until 2 weeks post-partum (2wPP), between 9th March 2017 and 16th January 2018, with follow-up until six months postpartum. The primary endpoint was pharmacokinetics of DTG in women and breastfed infants; secondary endpoints included maternal and infant safety and viral suppression. Intensive pharmacokinetic sampling of DTG was undertaken at day 14 and 2wPP following administration of a medium-fat breakfast, with additional paired sampling between maternal plasma and cord blood, breastmilk and infant plasma. No differences in median baseline maternal age, gestation (31 vs 30 weeks), weight, obstetric history, viral load (4.5 log10 copies/mL both arms) and CD4 count (343 vs 466 cells/mm3) were observed between DTG (n = 29) and EFV (n = 31) arms. Although DTG Ctrough was below the target 324ng/mL (clinical EC90) in 9/28 (32%) mothers in the third trimester, transfer across the placenta (121% of plasma concentrations) and into breastmilk (3% of plasma concentrations), coupled with slower elimination, led to significant infant plasma exposures (3-8% of maternal exposures). Both regimens were well-tolerated with no significant differences in frequency of adverse events (two on DTG-ART, one on EFV-ART, all considered unrelated to drug). No congenital abnormalities were observed. DTG resulted in significantly faster viral suppression (P = 0.02) at the 2wPP visit, with median time to <50 copies/mL of 32 vs 72 days. Limitations related to the requirement to initiate EFV-ART prior to randomisation, and to continue DTG for only two weeks postpartum. Despite low plasma DTG exposures in the third trimester, transfer across the placenta and through breastfeeding was observed in this study, with persistence in infants likely due to slower metabolic clearance. HIV RNA suppression <50 copies/mL was twice as fast with DTG compared to EFV, suggesting DTG has potential to reduce risk of vertical transmission in mothers who are initiated on treatment late in pregnancy. clinicaltrials.gov NCT02245022.

Background ENCORE1 demonstrated non-inferiority of daily efavirenz 400 mg (EFV400) versus 600 mg (EFV600) to 96 weeks in treatment-naïve, HIV-infected adults but concerns regarding lower EFV400 concentrations remained. Therefore, relationships between EFV pharmacokinetics (PK) and key genetic polymorphisms with 96-week efficacy and safety were investigated. Methods Relationships between EFV PK parameters and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP; CYP2B6, CYP2A6 , CYP3A4 , NR1I3 , NR1I2 , ABCB1 ) with plasma HIV-RNA (pVL) <200 copies/mL and EFV discontinuation and adverse events at 96 weeks were explored. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis evaluated the predictability of mid-dose interval (C 12 ) cutoffs and 96-week pVL. Results A total of 606 patients (32 % female; 37 % African, 33 % Asian; n   =  311 EFV400, n   =  295 EFV600) were included. EFV PK parameters, including C 12 , were not associated with pVL <200 copies/mL at 96 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 5.25, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.41–67.90, p   =  0.204). Lower risk of CNS-related adverse events was associated with CYP2B6 983TC/CC (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.15–0.81, p   =  0.015) and higher risk was associated with CYP2B6 15582CT/TT and ABCB1 3435TT (OR 1.46, 95 % CI 1.02–2.09, p   =  0.040; OR 2.31, 95 % CI 1.33–4.02, p   =  0.003, respectively). Discontinuation due to adverse events (clinician decision) was independently associated with dose (OR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.19–5.43, p   =  0.016). C 12 between 0.47 and 0.76 mg/L provided sensitivity/specificity >90 % (100 %/92.3 to 98.9 %/92.3 %) for achieving pVL <200 copies/mL at 96 weeks. Conclusions A higher rate of EFV-related adverse events and discontinuations due to these events for EFV600 were not driven by polymorphisms assessed. Although a single threshold concentration associated with HIV suppression may be clinically useful, it was not viable for ENCORE1. Implementation of EFV400 would improve toxicity management whilst still maintaining good efficacy.

Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449. 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was −0·4 (95% CI −5·9 to 5·2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11% vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2–4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0·0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. Tibotec.

The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725. From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3·5% [95% CI −1·7 to 8·8]; p non-inferiority<0·0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2–4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0·0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0·0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0·0001). Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Tibotec.

Background. The MERIT (Maraviroc versus Efavirenz in Treatment-Naive Patients) study compared maraviroc and efavirenz, both with zidovudine-lamivudine, in antiretroviral-naive patients with R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. Methods. Patients screened for R5 HIV-1 were randomized to receive efavirenz (600 mg once daily) or maraviroc (300 mg once or twice daily) with zidovudine-lamivudine. Coprimary end points were proportions of patients with a viral load <400 and <50 copies/mL at week 48; the noninferiority of maraviroc was assessed. Results. The once-daily maraviroc arm was discontinued for not meeting prespecified noninferiority criteria. In the primary 48-week analysis (n=721), maraviroc was noninferior for <400 copies/mL (70.6% for maraviroc vs 73.1% for efavirenz) but not for <50 copies/mL (65.3% vs 69.3%) at a threshold of −10%. More maraviroc patients discontinued for lack of efficacy (11.9% vs 4.2%), but fewer discontinued for adverse events (4.2% vs 13.6%). In a post hoc reanalysis excluding 107 patients (15%) with non-R5 screening virus by the current, more sensitive tropism assay, the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups was above −10% for each end point. Conclusions. Twice-daily maraviroc was not noninferior to efavirenz at <50 copies/mL in the primary analysis. However, 15% of patients would have been ineligible for inclusion by a more sensitive screening assay. Their retrospective exclusion resulted in similar response rates in both arms Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: (NCT00098293).

Background. Concomitant use of rifamycins to treat or prevent tuberculosis can result in subtherapeutic concentrations of antiretroviral drugs. We studied the interaction of efavirenz with daily rifapentine and isoniazid in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals receiving a 4-week regimen to prevent tuberculosis. Methods. Participants receiving daily rifapentine and isoniazid with efavirenz had pharmacokinetic evaluations at baseline and weeks 2 and 4 of concomitant therapy. Efavirenz apparent oral clearance was estimated and the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of values before and during rifapentine and isoniazid was calculated. HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA was measured at baseline and week 8. Results. Eighty-seven participants were evaluable: 54% were female, and the median age was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 29–44 years). Numbers of participants with efavirenz concentrations ≥1 mg/L were 85 (98%) at week 0; 81 (93%) at week 2; 78 (90%) at week 4; and 75 (86%) at weeks 2 and 4. Median efavirenz apparent oral clearance was 9.3 L/hour (IQR, 6.42–13.22 L/hour) at baseline and 9.8 L/hour (IQR, 7.04–15.59 L/hour) during rifapentine/isoniazid treatment (GMR, 1.04 [90% confidence interval, .97–1.13]). Seventy-nine of 85 (93%) participants had undetectable HIV-1 RNA (<40 copies/mL) at entry; 71 of 75 (95%) participants had undetectable HIV-1 RNA at week 8. Two participants with undetectable HIV-1 RNA at study entry were detectable (43 and 47 copies/mL) at week 8. Conclusions. The proportion of participants with midinterval efavirenz concentrations ≥1 mg/L did not cross below the prespecified threshold of >80%, and virologic suppression was maintained. Four weeks of daily rifapentine plus isoniazid can be coadministered with efavirenz without clinically meaningful reductions in efavirenz mid-dosing concentrations or virologic suppression. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT 01404312.

Background. We examined associations between suicidality and genotypes that predict plasma efavirenz exposure among AIDS Clinical Trials Group study participants in the United States. Methods. Four clinical trials randomly assigned treatment-naive participants to efavirenz-containing regimens; suicidality was defined as reported suicidal ideation or attempted or completed suicide. Genotypes that predict plasma efavirenz exposure were defined by CYP2B6 and CYP2A6 polymorphisms. Associations were evaluated with weighted Cox proportional hazards models stratified by race/ethnicity. Additional analyses adjusted for genetic ancestry and selected covariates. Results. Among 1833 participants, suicidality was documented in 41 in exposed analyses, and 34 in on-treatment analyses. In unadjusted analyses based on 12 genotype levels, suicidality increased per level in exposed (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, .96–1.27) and on-treatment 1.16; 1.01–1.34) analyses. In the on-treatment analysis, the association was strongest among white but nearly null among black participants. Considering 3 metabolizer levels (extensive, intermediate and slow), slow metabolizers were at increased risk. Results were similar after baseline covariate-adjustment for genetic ancestry, sex, age, weight, injection drug use history, and psychiatric history or recent psychoactive medication. Conclusions. Genotypes that predict higher plasma efavirenz exposure were associated with increased risk of suicidality. Strength of association varied by race/ethnicity.

In an open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial, dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy was compared with standard care in children and adolescents starting first- or second-line therapy for HIV type 1 infection. Dolutegravir-based ART was superior to standard-care ART.

SHR6390 is an oral, potent and selective small-molecule CDK4/6 inhibitor for the treatment of human breast, ovarian and colon cancer. Previous studies have shown that SHR6390 in combination with rifampicin, a potent inducer of CYP3A4, significantly reduces exposure levels. Therefore, we further investigated the effect of efavirenz, a moderate CYP3A4 inducer, on a single oral dose of SHR6390 in healthy volunteers. Twenty healthy subjects were enrolled in this single-center, open, single-dose, self-controlled DDI study. On Day 1, subjects received a single oral dose of 150mg SHR6390; on Day 8-26, subjects received 600 mg efavirenz orally at night, with a single dose of 150 mg SHR6390 on Day 22. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analyses were collected. The geometric mean ratios of the maximum concentration(C ) and the area under the concentration curve from zero to infinity (AUC ) between combination therapy and SHR6390 monotherapy (combination therapy/SHR6390 monotherapy) and their 90% confidence intervals were 0.562 (0.482, 0.654) and 0.328 (0.278, 0.386), respectively. This indicates that the Cmax and AUC0 inf of SHR6390 decreased by approximately 43.8% and 67.2%, respectively. Oral administration of 150 mg SHR6390 alone or together with efavirenz was safe and tolerable in healthy subjects. It is suggested that under the action of the moderate CPY3A4 inducer efavirenz, the exposure AUC of SHR6390 exhibits a moderate level of induction. It is recommended to avoid concomitant administration of moderate inducers of CYP3A4 during treatment with SHR6390. http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html, CTR20211571/ https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04973020.

In this open-label trial of first-line treatment for HIV-1 in Cameroon, a dolutegravir-based regimen was found to be noninferior to a low-dose efavirenz–based regimen as initial antiretroviral therapy. However, more weight gain and a higher incidence of obesity occurred in the dolutegravir group.